- (1.) THE Jaipur Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. , Jaipur (hereinafter called the petitioner company) has filed this writ petition against the State of Rajasthan, the Inspector General of Police, the Superintendent of Police Jaipur, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Bani Park, Jaipur and the District Magistrate, Jaipur, praying that a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued directing respondents Nos. 1 to 5 to perform their statutory duties under the provisions of the Police Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure to take appropriate legal action against respondents Nos. 6 to 33 and their associates who are committing criminal trespass and other offences in or near the mills of the petitioner company, and they may further be directed to remove the criminal trespass over the mill's premises immediately. It may be mentioned that the petitioner had impleaded certain workmen as respondents Nos. 6 to 33 but Mr. Gupta, appearing on behalf of the petitioner company made a request on 25th of September, 1972, that since no relief has been sought against the workmen, who are respondents Nos. 6 to 33, their names may be deleted from the array of respondents. This Court accordingly ordered that the names of respondents Nos. 6 to 33 be deleted. THEreafter Mr. M. L. Shrimali filed an application on behalf of the Suti Mill Mazdoor Ekta Samiti (hereinafter called the Samiti) stating that the Samiti is a registered trade union of the workmen of the textile mills of Jaipur and represents all the workmen including those who were impleaded as respondents Nos. 6 to 33 and it was, therefore, necessary to implead the Samiti as a respondent to this petition to place the view point of the workers before this Court. THE Court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner ordered on 13-10- 1972, to implead the said Samiti as a party to to this writ petition. A reply has been filed on behalf of the Samiti wherein it has been mentioned that the Samiti represents all the workmen including respondents Nos. 6 to 33 and, therefore, the reply represents the views of the workmen.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are briefly these. THE petitioner company is running a mill at Jaipur manufacturing cotton and synthetic yarn and it has in its employment about 1250 workmen. THEre appears to be two unions, one led by the Marxist party and the other by Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC ). THE allegation of the petitioner company is that on 26th of April, 1972, when the night shift was working some of the workmen indulged in acts of hooliganism inside the mill premises and it was done at the instigation of the Communist Marxist Party. It is further alleged that the workmen under the influence of the aforesaid party leaders went on illegal strike and they started giving beating to those workmen who did not join them in their strike. One Shri O. P. Choudhary, who was supervisor in the Reeling Department of the Mills, with seven other workmen were given beating with iron rods and lathis and they sustained injuries as a result of unlawful act done by the striking workmen. THEreafter, according to the narration given by the petitioner company of the activities of the workmen working under the influence of the Marxist party, various acts of hooliganiam took place in and outside the mills premises. THE petitioner company lodged reports of these unlawful acts of the workmen with the Police Station Bani Park, Jaipur, but their grievance is that the police did not take active interest to suppress these acts of holiganiam committed by the workmen. It is said that a call for a strike was given by the workmen, but there were certain other workmen who were prepared to attend to their duties but those, who were responsible for giving the call for strike did not permit them to attend to their work. However, with the intervention of the Labour Minister of the Government of Rajasthan the strike was called off and the workmen joined their duty on 1st of June, 1972, but it appears that the grievances of the workmen were not redressed and, therefore, the industrial peace could not be restored with the result that even after the strike was called off various workmen indulged in violent activities and, according to the allegations made by the petitioner company, they tried to take revenge upon the honest and loyal workmen who remained faithful to the management and who did not obey the call of the strike during the period when other workmen were on strike. It is also alleged that the workmen who returned to their duties after the strike was called off adopted the go slow tactics and went on tool down strike intermittently on various occasions during the period commencing from 1st of June, 1972 to 25th August, 1972. It appears that the management took a serious note of all these activities of the workmen and served some of the workmen with charge sheets, but this method adopted by the management widened the gulf between the workmen and the management. Complaints of stray actions of violence alleged to have been committed by the workmen were lodged with the police, but the petitioner company feels that the police authorities did not take an appropriate action against the offenders. According to the petitioner, this attitude of the police authorities encouraged the Marxist union to infuse spirit of violence in the workmen and therefore they freely indulged in violent and unlawful activities. On 25-8-1972, it is alleged, two persons, namely, Sitaram and Ashok Sharma, who were members of the staff, were given beating with lathis within the mill premises. A complaint was lodged by Sitaram at the Police Station, Bani Park on the same day, but it is said that no action was taken by the police against the wrong doers. These activities on the part of the miscreants created an atmosphere of terror and the management started thinking that the lives of the loyal workers and that of the members of the supervising staff were not safe. The management also apprehended danger to the properties of the mills, and it is alleged that on 26-8-1972, Shri Parti and Sohanlal members of the staff were given beating within the mill premises and the complaint lodged by them with the police did not bring any result. According to the petitioner, the staff was so much terrorised that they even did not feel like lodging reports of the violent activities of the workmen. The management thereupon is said to have informed the District Magistrate and the police authorities that in such circumstances it was not possible for them to carry on the business of the company and they thought that they were left with no alternative but to declare a lockout in the mills. On 26th of August, 1972 at 9. 00 p. m. the lockout was, therefore, notified giving elaborate reasons for taking such a drastic action on the part of the management. The grievance of the petitioner company further is that even after the declaration of the lock-out the workmen did not leave the mill premises and they are still coming to the mills and do not permit the management to lock the outer gates of the mills. The situation was intimated to the Government as well as to the police authorities by the petitioner company by sending the following telegram on 27th of August, 1972: "express Telegram - Management declared lock out yesterday workers of night shift forcibly entered Mills remained inside mill premises inspite of lock out (.) In morning and second shift also workers forcibly entered Mills workers trespass continued still (.) Request necessary action for vacation of trespass thereby ensuring safety of Mill's property. Jaipur Spg. Mill" When no action was taken by the police on the said telegram to remove the trespass a second telegram was given by the management on 31st of August, 1972, to respondents Nos. 1 to 5 which reads as follows : "ref. our telegram 27th August (.) Illegal trespass by workers on our Mill premises is still continuing (.) Request immediate necessary action for vacation of illegal trespass by workers from our premises ensuring safety of Mill property. " On 2nd September another telegram reading "ref. our telegrams 27th and 31st August (.) Illegal trespass by workers on our Mill premises is still continuing (.) Request immediate necessary action for vacation of illegal trespass by workers from our premises ensuring safety of Mill property. " was again sent. The petitioner's grievance is that in spite of all their endeavours, the police did not take any action against the trespassers and, therefore, they genuinely apprehended that the properties of the Mills were not safe and, therefore, they have decided to approach this Court by filing this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution making the prayer as referred to above. A reply has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 wherein certain acts of violence committed by the petitioner company in the beginning when the trouble started in the Mills have been admitted, but it is averred by the respondents that the police took appropriate action against the miscreants and after registering the cases against those who were involved in violent activities challans were put up in the court of law. It is also averred that in curbing the activities of the violent workmen the police personnel also sustained various injuries and, therefore, it cannot be said that the police was a silent spectator and was not discharging its duties in accordance with the mandate of the law. However, while making a reply to paras 18 and 20 of the writ petition, the answering respondents took a plea that the lock-out declared by the petitioner company was not a legal lock out as there were no grounds available to the management to declare a lock-out. It is admitted in this para that the Mill was working at the time when the lock-out was declared by the management and, therefore, the labourers of one shift who were already there in the mill remained there and thereafter it is averred that "now also the labourers came peacefully, stay there and then labourers of other shift replace them. Neither the outer gate nor inner department has been closed. Since 26-8-72 even upto date neither any loss has been caused to the Mill property nor any person has been beaten or threatened. The matter has been referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudicating the validity of notice dated 26-8-72. " In reply to contents of para 20 of the writ petition, the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 have averred that "according to the union's version the lock out is with an oblique motive just to throw out the labourers. The question of legality or validity of such lockout is sub-judice with the Tribunal. The labourers are on peaceful strike and are demanding their salaries and dues without resorting to any violence. The Chowkidars and telephone operators are inside the mill premises while the other staff of the Mill management is not attending the Mill as per their sweet will and there is no danger to their lives or any apprehension of damage to the property. Since the labourers are the employees of the petitioner, they have their right to enter and remain in the mill premises and in the absence of proper lock out they cannot be described as trespassers. They are in no way intimidating or annoying the petitioner. Therefore, under such circumstances under no provision of law they can be physically lifted and thrown out of the Mill premises by the police. It is wrong for the petitioner to say that there is any terror created by the labourers. The petitioner has sent telegrams from time to time simply to create grounds to justify their paper lockout. The Government agencies have taken action whenever it was needed and would take action if so warranted. " In this view of the stand taken by the respondents, it is prayed that the petition of the petitioner company should be rejected with costs. While making application to be impleaded as a party, the Suti Mill Mazdoor Ekta Samiti in para No. 6 thereof mentioned that "all the workers under the leadership of the Ekta Samiti have refused to accept the lock out and are attending their duties regularly shift by shift". At the time of arguments, a specific question was put to Mr. Shrimali about the position of workers whether they are still in the occupation of the mills or not. An affidavit has been filed by one Shri Ramnarain who happens to be the Secretary of the said Samiti and in this affidavit it has been averred that the workmen are going to the mills shiftwise to attend to their duty and one shift leaves the mill after the time for that shift is over and another shift goes to the mills. It is, however, stated that these workmen go only upto the Department and they do not go to the machines, where they have actually to work. In reply to this affidavit, Shri Banwarilal Tibrewal has filed a supplementary affidavit on 4th of November, 1972, contradicting the averments made in the affidavit of Shri Ramnarain and alleging that the Security Officer of the mills has lodged a report with the Police Station, Bani Park, on 27th October, 1972, that several almirahs in the mills were unlocked and were lying open and in some of the almirahs even the latches and the locks are missing. The petitioner company has filed the copy of this first information report along with this affidavit. The Samiti has taken a stand in its reply that the lockout declared by the management was uncalled for and it was, therefore, an illegal lockout. This lock-out, according to the Samiti, does not terminate the relationship of the workmen and the management as that of master and servant and, therefore, as lawfully employed servants the workmen have to go to the mills and bring collective pressure on the management to concede the demands made by the union. The action of the workmen going in the mills after the lock-out has been declared by the management, according to the Samiti, is not an unlawful act of the workmen and, therefore, it cannot be said that they have committed any criminal trespass against the petitioner company. Mr. Agarwal, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has narrowed down the issues by arguing only one point that the act of the workmen of going to the mills and occupying the mill premises after the declaration of lock-out falls within the expression "trespass" as defined in the Penal Code and as such a duty lies on the police authorities to remove this, trespass when an approach was made to them by the petitioner company, and since the police authorities have taken a very strange attitude towards the unlawful activities of the workmen, the petitioner company is left with no remedy but to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to get the wrong done to it redressed by seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents to discharge their duty under the Rajasthan Police Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Mr. Agarwal, it is due to the timid attitude of the management that in spite of the criminal trespass there appears to be a peaceful atmosphere in the mills because the management out of fear of violence did not interfere with the unlawful activities of the workers and completely withdrew itself from the mills as it apprehended danger to the safety of the properties of the mills. He, therefore, urged that forbearance on the part of the management should not be interpreted to mean that peaceful atmosphere in the mills can in any manner justify the passive attitude adopted by the police. The substance of Mr. Agarwal's contention is that the apparent peaceful atmosphere reigning in the premises of the mills due to the complete withdrawal of the management cannot be taken as a pretext by the police authorities to bid good bye to their pious duties under the law to remove the trespass which has virtually deprived the petitioner company of its legitimate right to manage the mills. Mr. Purohit, appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 5, on the other hand, contends that the management cannot be permitted to shield its unlawful activities of declaring a lock-out when circumstances did not warrant such an action on the part of the management; and, therefore, by levelling serious charges against the police authorities who have always been taking active interest to suppress the hooliganism of the workmen and to take proper action against them under the law, it cannot justify its attitude towards its own workmen which to a great extent is responsible to create the disturbed atmosphere in the industry. He also referred in his arguments to an incident when many members of the police force sustained injuries at the hands of the mill mazdoors when they attempted to restrain the mazdoors to go to the Chief Minister to register their grievances with him. His argument, therefore, is that, on the one hand, the police is being manhandled by the mazdoors and, on the other hand, a false charge is levelled against the police that it is not discharging its duties for keeping law and order, especially when the activities of the labourers in pressing their demands are quite peaceful. It was also contended by Mr. Purohit that this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction cannot direct the police people as to how much force should be used by the police to curb the unlawful activities of the mill Mazdoors, especially when the police has taken the action every time when a complaint was lodged with it of any violent action committed by any of the members of the mill mazdoor union.
(3.) MR. Shrimali, appearing on behalf of the Samiti, contended that it is the right of the workmen to press their demands and have a collective bargaining with the management and it was with that view that the members of the Samiti are making a peaceful demonstration within the mill precincts even after the lockout has been declared and in order to do that the labourers are going shiftwise to the mills and are staying in the mill precincts for the work to be given to them during the period of lock-out. He also argued that the lock-out by itself does not terminate the relationship of master and servant between the employer and the employed and, therefore as servants the workmen have a right to go to a place of work and, therefore, their entry in the mill precincts during the lock-out cannot fall within the mischief of the definition of "trespass" as given in sec. 441 of the Indian Penal Code. These rival arguments of the parties give rise to a very important question to be determined by this Court whether the lock-out declared by the management in any way can put a curb on the alleged right of the workmen to discharge their duties as employees of the petitioner company even though no work is provided to them by their masters during the period of lock-out and whether the entry of the workmen in the premises of the mills falls within the term "criminal trespass". In order to resolve this controversy, we shall have to see as to what is the effect of lock-out. But before coming to that question, I would like to mention that this question need not be gone into by this Court whether the lock-out was a proper lock-out or was an illegal lock-out. The union, it appears, has already raised an issue before the Government that the lock-out declared by the management was an improper and unlawful lock-out and that dispute appears to have been referred by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. It will, therefore, be not proper for this Court to examine that question at this stage which is also not relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue that has been raised before this Court. Whether the lock-out is lawful or unlawful matters little for the purpose of deciding the question that has been so vehemently urged by the parties whether the act of the workmen to enter the mill premises when the lock-out was declared by the petitioner company falls within the mischief of the term "criminal trespass" or not. If the lock-out is ultimately declared unlawful, then whatever the remedies are available to the workmen to get their grievances redressed for declaring an unlawful lock-out will be available to them under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Tribunal before which this dispute is pending shall be at liberty to give proper relief to the workmen if ultimately it was found that the lock-out was uncalled for and was, therefore, unlawful. In order to decide the question before this Court, it shall have to be taken that the lock-out was declared by the petitioner company on 26th of August, 1972 and what is the effect of such a declaration of lock-out on the conditions of service and on the rights of the employees. "lock-out" has been defined in the Industrial Disputes Act in sec. 2 (1) as follows - "sec. 2 (1) 'lock-out' means the closing of a place of employment, or the suspension of work or the refusal by an employer to continue to employ any number of persons employed by him. " ;